I agree, the law has a lot of highly questionable protocols and
rules in place. Definitely not to be confused with ethics or
morals or any sense of right and wrong. They are lists of
contingencies, some of which probably need some major overhauls.
On Tue Sep 18 18:57:03 EDT 2007, Graham Picklesimer
<[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> First, I'd like to pass along this footage (
> http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=3ec_1190097717 ) of what happened
> immediately after Andrew was arrested for those (morbidly)
> curious. All sides are still acting like fools. Unless Andrew
> was putting on a front for the camera, he's clearly not all
> together in the head ("They're giving me to the government!
> They're gonna kill me!"). However at the same time, the police
> officers seem to seriously be claiming that he was inciting a
> riot. I am not making this up.
>
> Here's the problem: this situation got out of control because of
> police incompetence. Andrew spent a minute and a half rambling
> half-coherently about Skull and Bones and whatever. The police
> should have let him finish like John Kerry asked them to. What
> was he going to do when he finished, bum rush the stage? (If
> yes, then at that point I agree they would have every right to
> taser him and possibly worse) Instead, they turned an unstable
> situation into an openly dangerous one. And they kept making
> mistake after mistake once they did. The reason that there were
> any legal justifications to use a taser in the first place is
> because the police escalated rather than defused the situation.
> Levelheadedness, indeed.
>
> And I hope we aren't seriously using statute 943.1717 or whatever
> as a code of ethics. I've made it a point not to argue whether
> or not what UPD did was legal. I'm sure that a lawyer with
> sufficiently shiny shoes could argue it either way. In fact,
> I'll go ahead and assume it was legal, because I already said
> that if this is UPD policy, it's a stupid policy. Saying "it's
> leeeegallll," even in all capital letters, doesn't change the
> fact that it was a dick thing to do, and that this situation was
> poorly handled on UPD's part (the fact that the officer
> honest-to-god said that he was trying to incite a riot really
> evaporates whatever moral high ground they had left in my view).
>
> Andrew certainly isn't a great freedom fighter of our time and he
> could probably use a hug or something judging by what I've seen
> of him, but UPD is still way out of line and I hope that the
> independent review notices this as well.
>
> On Tue Sep 18 16:14:26 EDT 2007, "J. Bryan Scott"
> <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>
>> Andrew Meyer was being placed under arrest for disturbing the
>> peace
>> and violating police orders to leave (he repeatedly tried to
>> escape &
>> run back up to the microphone - watch the videos).
>>
>> -Instead of cooperating once he was on the ground, he resisted
>> verbally and physically. -Andrew is a big guy - about 6'2" and
>> 200lbs.
>> -Squirming around posed a serious threat to himself and the
>> surrounding officers.
>>
>>
>> For the record, here are the laws the govern law enforcement's
>> use of tasers:
>>
>> 943.1717 Use of dart-firing stun guns.--
>>
>> (1) A decision by a law enforcement officer, correctional
>> officer, or
>> correctional probation officer to use a dart-firing stun gun must
>> involve an arrest or a custodial situation during which the
>> person who
>> is the subject of the arrest or custody escalates resistance to
>> the
>> officer from passive physical resistance to active physical
>> resistance
>> and the person:
>>
>> (a) Has the apparent ability to physically threaten the officer
>> or others; or
>>
>> (b) Is preparing or attempting to flee or escape.
>>
>>
>> Andrew violated both (a) & (b), GIVING THE OFFICERS NOT ONE BUT
>> TWO
>> LEGAL REASONS TO TASE HIM. Andrew Meyer, not the police, is an
>> embarrassment to the University of Florida.
>>
>> These officers should be commended for their courage and level
>> headedness under a difficult situation.
>>
>> I don't really care about sentencing for his felony, but I hope
>> he is
>> expelled from UF. It's disgraceful to have to share a graduation
>> ceremony with someone so immature and out of control. People get
>> expelled for doing far less disgraceful things (like cheating on
>> an
>> exam). This kid is a senior. He shouldn't behave this poorly,
>> ever.
>>
>>
>> On 9/18/07, Graham Picklesimer <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>>> Sorry I didn't see your message Jim, I would have replied but it
>>> never showed up in my inbox. I've noticed a couple of messages
>>> I'm missing based on what other people are replying to. Anyone
>>> else having this problem?
>>>
>>> Anyways, Anthony said most of what I would have said. I just
>>> want
>>> to add (repeat?) that the officers are supposed to be trained to
>>> deal with situations like this. They did a piss poor job of it.
>>> It's easy to say "Well what would you have done, anything
>>> better?"
>>> I probably wouldn't have done anything better because I'm not
>>> trained to do it any better. If I ever performed at any job I've
>>> ever had this terribly, I would be fired, it's that simple. And
>>> there's much less at stake in my jobs than people's health and in
>>> many cases, their lives. If nothing else, they deserve a mighty
>>> stern bureaucratic punch in the face, one that we can actually
>>> all
>>> see.
>>>
>>> I'm sure many of you have at some point or another cursed out a
>>> referee for making a bad call. Sure, you were able to watch the
>>> play in slow motion from a zillion angles with TV pens pointing
>>> out all the interesting details, but that doesn't change the fact
>>> that the referee made a shitty call. Do you excuse him for it as
>>> easily as you would these police officers for messing up a call
>>> with far worse consequences than 3rd and long? Judging by much
>>> of
>>> the Monday morning quarterbacking I've witnessed during my tenure
>>> at UF, I suspect the answer is no.
>>>
>>>
>>> On Tue Sep 18 12:40:40 EDT 2007, "LITTLE,ANTHONY R"
>>> <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>>>
>>> > I think being in complete control of someone (i.e. stopping
>>> them
>>> > from yelling/flailing while being held on the ground) and
>>> > stopping someone from being a danger (e.g. being held on the
>>> > ground/restrained) are very different things. It seems to be
>>> > they had the latter quite well once he was on the ground. It
>>> > doesn't really matter if he was tasered before or after the
>>> > handcuffing, because either way, the guy was not about to get
>>> up
>>> > with like 3-4 people either sitting on him or holding him down.
>>> >
>>> > People don't need to be made to instantly comply in most
>>> > situations, and this is one of them. Yelling and flailing puts
>>> > basically nobody in danger, especially when the person doing so
>>> > is restrained. If I tasered someone whenever someone didn't
>>> > comply at my job within like 2 minutes, I think almost every
>>> > person there would have burn marks or whatever products are
>>> made
>>> > by such actions (and those individuals are actually attacking
>>> > people, not just yelling and flopping around).
>>> >
>>> > I agree with the police actions of removing him in general
>>> > though. I think he was completely out of line in running up
>>> > there and basically forcing his question to be heard.
>>> > Additionally, owners of properties have the right to kick you
>>> off
>>> > of that property, and even have you remove physically.
>>> >
>>> > At first, I was unaware of his barging in, and thought it was
>>> > ridiculous that they stopped him from talking. I found out
>>> > relatively quickly that that was not the case, however, and I
>>> > still feel the police were completely unreasonable once he was
>>> > restrained.
>>> >
>>> > I also do not think the argument should in any way be about
>>> what
>>> > he said / what the police said. Clearly the police were being
>>> > ridiculous and clearly Andrew was as well. The argument should
>>> > be focused on why it's somehow necessary to use electric
>>> shock in
>>> > order to make someone comply when they are posing no physical
>>> > threat to anyone.
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > On Tue Sep 18 11:30:47 EDT 2007, Jim Martz <[log in to unmask]>
>>> > wrote:
>>> >
>>> >> I really Haven't wanted to get into the middle of this, but I
>>> >> just wanted to
>>> >> put a small thought into your minds while you're debating
>>> this.
>>> >> Put yourself
>>> >> in the shoes of everyone else there. Personally, If I were
>>> >> Andrew, I would
>>> >> have handled the situation differently. If I were the police
>>> >> officers, I
>>> >> think I would have handled it the same way. As a police
>>> officer,
>>> >> its your
>>> >> duty to keep order and protect the general public. Andrew was
>>> >> clearly
>>> >> causing a disturbance when ACCENT (not the police) decided
>>> that
>>> >> his
>>> >> "Question" was no longer worthy of being heard. It was a
>>> police
>>> >> duty to keep
>>> >> order when he got out of line, which called for removing him
>>> >> from the venue.
>>> >>
>>> >>
>>> >> Throughout the ordeal, Andrew is consistently saying one thing
>>> >> and doing
>>> >> another. This has fueled debate here as people continuously
>>> say
>>> >> he was going
>>> >> to leave and was complying. He may have said it, but his
>>> actions
>>> >> spoke much
>>> >> louder as he fought police officers, and charged back towards
>>> >> senator Kerry
>>> >> before being tackled by officers.
>>> >>
>>> >> At this point, he was told NUMEROUS times that if he did not
>>> >> comply he would
>>> >> be tasered. For those of you don't believe Stephanie Sims
>>> (Great
>>> >> post btw),
>>> >> this video (
>>> >> http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-1606277730046267759 )
>>> >> shows clearly that officers attempt to handcuff him to take
>>> >> control of the
>>> >> situation, and he does nothing but continue to flail and push
>>> >> officers away
>>> >> from him. He is NOT handcuffed when tasered and officers are
>>> NOT
>>> >> in control
>>> >> of him.
>>> >>
>>> >> Decisions a police officer makes must be made in the heat of
>>> the
>>> >> moment,
>>> >> with split second decision making. Many people on here
>>> criticize
>>> >> their
>>> >> actions without ever thinking of what they would do in that
>>> >> situation. The
>>> >> officers did not have time to find out background about him,
>>> ask
>>> >> people what
>>> >> kind of person he was, analyze every YouTube video posted on
>>> the
>>> >> internet,
>>> >> and consult a supervisor / policy book before the decision to
>>> >> use force was
>>> >> made. Take away all those resources you as critics of their
>>> >> actions have
>>> >> had, reduce your time to make a decision to the time they had,
>>> >> and then go
>>> >> find someone to beat the crap out of you while you make that
>>> >> decision, and
>>> >> see what conclusion you'll come to.
>>> >>
>>> >> 2 cents
>>> >> -Jim
>>> >>
>>> >> On 9/18/07, Graham Picklesimer <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>>> >>>
>>> >>> At best, this is just about the most miserable handling of a
>>> >>> hyperactive person by the law enforcement I think I've ever
>>> seen.
>>> >>> He had not one, not two, but three officers screaming
>>> commands,
>>> >>> sometimes conflicting, at him at the same time, and on top of
>>> >>> that
>>> >>> about three more grabbing and holding on to random parts of
>>> his
>>> >>> body. Can you even imagine a worse way to try to get
>>> someone to
>>> >>> calm down? The thing I'm questioning the most and which
>>> I'm sure
>>> >>> (I hope) will be the focus of whatever investigation occurs
>>> is
>>> >>> whether the officers are at all competent. Like I said
>>> before,
>>> >>> two bouncers manage to get misbehaving people out of
>>> buildings
>>> >>> all
>>> >>> the time in a far more hectic environment than a Q&A
>>> session, and
>>> >>> they manage to do it without tasing people and in all of
>>> about 10
>>> >>> seconds. Why should we be satisfied with this level of
>>> >>> incompetence from UPD? Again, if they can't handle a
>>> scrawny kid
>>> >>> (who apparently lost 10 pounds over the course of my original
>>> >>> message) who's been reading too many internet conspiracy
>>> theories
>>> >>> late at night, why are they in this job?
>>> >>>
>>> >>> Make no mistake, I think this kid was really just being a
>>> noisy
>>> >>> obnoxious fool, but if this is UPD's protocol for handling
>>> noisy
>>> >>> obnoxious fools then something is seriously wrong. Kerry was
>>> >>> doing a perfectly good job with the situation until the two
>>> cops
>>> >>> grabbed him. You can almost see "9/11 never forget, let's
>>> roll"
>>> >>> flash across their eyes right before they go after him in the
>>> >>> video posted by GainesvilleSun.
>>> >>>
>>> >>>
>>> >>> On Tue Sep 18 10:29:12 EDT 2007, Stephanie
>>> <[log in to unmask]>
>>> >>> wrote:
>>> >>>
>>> >>> > With all due respect (again from someone that was there)
>>> >>> >
>>> >>> > John Kerry did everything in his power to control the
>>> >>> situation.
>>> >>> > He told the cops to stand back and allow Andrew to ask the
>>> >>> > question, he guided Andrew through the question,
>>> encouraged him
>>> >>> > to stay calm. When Andrew burst into the room, John Kerry
>>> said
>>> >>> > that he would answer the question and told the cops it was
>>> >>> okay-
>>> >>> > to let him talk. He made it very clear that he was going to
>>> >>> make
>>> >>> > time to address Andrew's question, and he did. In depth-
>>> even
>>> >>> > after Andrew felt the need to cause a disturbance.
>>> >>> >
>>> >>> > After things picked up, John Kerry encouraged the
>>> audience to
>>> >>> > stay calm, and that he would move forward when appropriate.
>>> >>> >
>>> >>> > He is not a law enforcement officer and could not have
>>> directly
>>> >>> > intervened. It is not his place to tell the police to
>>> taser or
>>> >>> > not to taser someone who is clearly out of line and
>>> causing a
>>> >>> > public disturbance. (Do you think he should have jumped
>>> from
>>> >>> the
>>> >>> > stage and got in the middle of it? ;-)
>>> >>> >
>>> >>> > I am not educated on UF's policy on tasers and I support an
>>> >>> > investigation, but I'm telling you the cops were not out of
>>> >>> line.
>>> >>> >
>>> >>> > Stephanie Sims
>>> >>> >
>>> >>> > "GRUTTA, JOSEPH R." <[log in to unmask]> wrote: How can
>>> Senator
>>> >>> > Jerry call himself a leader when he just stood by and did
>>> >>> > nothing? Why couldn't he say "allow the boy to finish his
>>> >>> > question" or "officers wait, I will answer his question?"
>>> >>> Instead
>>> >>> > of doing the right thing, he just kept drowning on like
>>> nothing
>>> >>> > was happening. Also, the use of force was overly in excess.
>>> >>> While
>>> >>> > Andrew was clearly out of line, his actions posed no
>>> threat to
>>> >>> > officers, Senator Kerry, or his fellow students. He merely
>>> >>> wanted
>>> >>> > to ask a question, and for that he was tasered. After
>>> watching
>>> >>> > numerous videos at various angles I noted that Andrew was
>>> >>> already
>>> >>> > constrained by several officers and had even asked to
>>> leave the
>>> >>> > room. Other then satisfying their macho egos, the UPD
>>> officers'
>>> >>> > tasering of Meyer served no purpose. They should be
>>> condemned,
>>> >>> > fired, and held personally (civilly) liable for their
>>> actions.
>>> >>> >
>>> >>> > Best regards,
>>> >>> > Joseph
>>> >>> >
>>> >>> >
>>> >>> > ---------------------------------
>>> >>> > Be a better Heartthrob. Get better relationship answers
>>> from
>>> >>> > someone who knows.
>>> >>> > Yahoo! Answers - Check it out.
>>> >>>
>>> >>>
>>> >>
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > --
>>> > Anthony Little
>>> > Behavior Program Manager
>>> > (352) 334-4060 ext. 131
>>> >
>>> >
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> J. Bryan Scott
>> [log in to unmask]
>> 904.716.3218
>> www.jbryanscott.com
>>
>> Attention:
>> This message may contain confidential and/or privileged
>> information. If you
>> are not the addressee or authorized to receive this for the
>> addressee, you
>> must not use, copy, disclose, or take any action based on this
>> message or
>> any information herein. If you have received this message in
>> error, please
>> advise the sender immediately by reply e-mail and delete this
>> message. Thank
>> you for your cooperation.
>>
>>
>
>